[pct-l] PCT usage quotas

[Brett]

I think the permit system as it currently works is mostly fine. But I 
don't think artificially limiting traffic - eg, quotas - along the PCT 
corridor via government regulation is a viable long-term solution to 
increasing use of a National Scenic Trail. You build it so they will 
come, and manage it so that they may continue to do so.

- blisterfree

Greg Kesselring wrote:
> <div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed">You're 
> preaching to the choir.  But how can the land management agencies 
> institute quotas and permits without applying it to everyone? Are you 
> saying that if quotas and permits are in place in certain areas, the 
> High Sierra, for example, you think the land management agencies will 
> just give a thru-hiker a permit to camp in that area any time they 
> happen to hike thru?  And what about JMT thru hikers, do they get a 
> "by" also?  Where do you draw the line?  Seems like that system would 
> end up getting abused. 
>
> Brett wrote:
>> Reworking the permit systems in Wilderness areas and National Parks 
>> as an ad hoc defense against increasing users numbers along the 
>> Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail would be out of line with the 
>> trail's intent as a linear, continuous recreational resource, a 
>> single entity with clear purpose. Penalizing long-distance hikers 
>> would seem especially perverse, given that we're greatly outnumbered 
>> by other users in a majority of these areas. The seasonal Herd 
>> phenomenon along the PCT  in southern California would seem to be a 
>> separate issue that has little to do with talk of quotas or 
>> aggressive permitting procedures. Unless, of course, we want to turn 
>> long-distance hiking on our NST's into the equivalent of airline 
>> travel, with advanced reservations required and specific seating 
>> arrangements, departure and arrival times stamped clearly on our 
>> boarding passes.
>>
>> - blisterfree
>>
>>
>> Greg Kesselring wrote:
>>  
>>> There are permit systems for backpacking in lots of Wilderness areas 
>>> and National Parks.  They have been in place for years in some 
>>> areas, North Cascade National Park and the Enchantment Lakes area in 
>>> Washington State are two examples.  They are enforced by backcountry 
>>> rangers similar to how bear cannisters are enforced in the Sierra.
>>>
>>> I suspect the way this would start on thePCT is by imposing limits 
>>> to the numbers of overnight campers in certain areas, for example, 
>>> in the various Wilderness Areas and National Parks that PCT goes 
>>> thru.  There would be restrictions in certain areas at certain times 
>>> of year.  How they would implement that for thru-hikers, I don't 
>>> know.  But it certainly could happen, and I believe it will if and 
>>> when the numbers of overnight campers become too large for an area 
>>> to handle.
>>>
>>> The solution:  ZPG.  or NPG.
>>> But that's not gonna happen in our lifetime, so we will just have to 
>>> deal with restrictions in certain areas when they come up.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> Brett wrote:
>>>    
>>>> The idea of a quota system for the PCT is utterly ridiculous, would 
>>>> be impossible to implement and enforce, and further should not be 
>>>> necessary, given the tried-and-true example of the Appalachian 
>>>> Trail and its great numbers of users - both short and long distance 
>>>> hikers - and the vigilance of hiking clubs all along the way who 
>>>> monitor and maintain the trail to a degree appropriate for its 
>>>> level of use. The future of an ever-more-popular PCT needs to 
>>>> follow the lead of its east coast counterpart, not that of a Mount 
>>>> Whitney type of numbers-based permit system. National Scenic Trails 
>>>> should remain available to everyone, and a long distance journey 
>>>> along them not turned into a premeditated ordeal of phone calls, 
>>>> applications, and fast mouse clicks to reserve a "spot" in front of 
>>>> the excluded hordes.
>>>>
>>>> Would an AT-style PCT irrevocably alter the Wilderness character 
>>>> along much of the PCT corridor? Probably, but the alternative of 
>>>> increased use without sufficient stewardship of the resource would 
>>>> ultimately do more real harm. This isn't to suggest the PCT needs a 
>>>> shelter system, for instance, but only that active as well as 
>>>> passive regulation can take other forms than sheer exclusion.
>>>>
>>>> - blisterfree
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>   
>
>
> </div>